"The new executive order is resulting in the establishment of religion in the state of Hawaii contrary to its state constitution; it is inflicting immediate damage to Hawaii's economy, educational institutions, and tourism industry; and it is subjecting a portion of the state's citizens to second-class treatment and discrimination, while denying all Hawaii residents the benefits of an inclusive and pluralistic society," attorneys for the state argued in court filings.

"The executive order means that thousands of individuals across the United States and in Hawaii who have immediate family members living in the affected countries will now be unable to receive visits from those persons or to be reunited with them in the United States."

The Department of Justice declined to comment. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions argued Monday that the ban was necessary because "we cannot compromise our nation's security by allowing visitors entry when their own governments are unable or unwilling to provide the information we need to vet them responsibly, or when those governments actively support terrorism."

Hawaii had previously sued over Trump's original travel ban, but the case was put on hold temporarily while a different federal judge's nationwide temporary restraining order halting the original ban remained in place. The state now argues that hold should be lifted in light of the new executive order and the court should accept its amended complaint.

"To be sure, the new executive order covers fewer people than the old one," Neal Katyal, one of the lead attorneys for Hawaii and former acting US solicitor general, explained in an interview with CNN. But in his view, the new travel ban still "suffers from the same constitutional and statutory defects."

The state's amended complaint asserts a number of different claims, but primarily emphasizes the new executive order's alleged discriminatory intent and effect, as well as the harm to Hawaii's economy.

Hawaii is also joined in the lawsuit by an American who is the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii and says he has lived in state for over a decade with his wife and children, but now his Syrian mother-in-law cannot visit them because she does not currently hold a visa to enter the US.

While many immigrants' rights groups and state attorneys general expressed deep reservations about the new order when it was released Monday, none had filed new lawsuits or amended their original filings until now.

Both Hawaii and the Justice Department have jointly asked for the judge to approve a tight briefing schedule in order for the state's request to be heard before the new executive order goes into effect on March 16. The court has not yet ruled on this joint request.

The Justice Department filed a flurry of notices in federal courts Monday -- including in this Hawaii case -- alerting the judges to the new order and arguing that the new order "falls outside of" injunctions that blocked the original ban. The government cited the significant changes to the new order, including the fact that it does not apply to green card holders or those with valid visas.